Animals in Scientific Procedures

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to ban the use of animals in the testing of potential new medicines.

Earl Howe: The Government's position is clear on minimising the use of animal testing, and on encouraging the development of other in vitro methods in place of animal testing where this is possible. The Government has a coalition agreement to reduce the number of animals used in scientific research. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency is working closely with the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research on a number of projects committed to reducing or replacement of animals in safety testing. It is very important to recognise that at present there are no laboratory methods available to totally replace animal testing of medicinal products.
	Pharmaceutical legislation requires that before a new medicine is granted a licence, a battery of in vitro and in vivo tests are conducted to establish the toxicity profiles for the medicine. Before humans are exposed to a new medicine for the first time, it is required to go through appropriate tests in animal studies to ensure that the toxicity profile is adequately characterised. As a result of adverse findings from animal studies, a large number of drug candidates do not progress to being tested in humans. Animal tests are also crucial for understanding the absorption, distribution and disposition of the medicine by the body and its therapeutic effect on the body and for detecting unforeseen toxic effects. Only on the basis of a full evaluation of all the available data can it be decided whether it is safe to proceed to clinical trials in humans. It would be unacceptable to expose humans to potentially dangerous medicinal products without knowledge of their toxicity profiles.

Animals: Pet Custody

Baroness Masham of Ilton: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any plans to introduce a scheme to care for domestic animals belonging to those unexpectedly taken into custody.

Lord De Mauley: The Government has no such plans. Offenders should make the necessary arrangements for the care of their animals whilst in custody in the same way as any person who may be unexpectedly away from home.

Asil Nadir

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Wallace of Tankerness on 24 June (WA 87), what were the financial implications for Serco Group plc as a result of the Field Monitoring Officer’s serious misconduct; whether a formal apology was issued to Mr Nadir as a consequence of the Field Monitoring Officer's serious misconduct; and whether the Field Monitoring Officer received a severance package.

Lord McNally: What were the financial implications for Serco Group PLC as a result of the field monitoring officer’s serious misconduct:
	There were no financial implications to Serco Group PLC as a result of this incident. Serco Group PLC’s financial expenditure in this case related to Legal Representation only.
	Whether a formal apology was issued to Mr Nadir as a consequence of the field monitoring officer’s serious misconduct:
	A formal letter of apology was written by Serco Group PLC and sent to Mr Nadir’s solicitor Giles Bark-Jones of Bark and Co Solicitors, London.
	Whether the field monitoring officer received a severance package: The field monitoring officer of Serco Group PLC was dismissed as a result of their actions and was not awarded a severance package.

Asylum Seekers

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many former unaccompanied asylum-seeking children were removed from the United Kingdom upon reaching the age of 18 in the years (1) 2010, (2) 2011, (3) 2013, and (4) thus far in 2013.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: Details of removals of former unaccompanied asylum seeking children once they have reached the age of 18 are shown in the following table:
	
		
			 Removals of UASCs for the period Jan 2010 to Jun 2013 
			 Final Removals Type 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total no. of Removals 
			 Assisted Voluntary Return 37 41 51 24 153 
			 Enforced 99 179 94 67 439 
			 Facilitated Returns Scheme 5 - 5 5 6 
			 Voluntary Departure 19 34 26 15 94 
		
	
	
		
			 Grand Total 159 254 172 107 692 
		
	
	*Data derived using UASC PiDs provided by Liverpool PU Team for ALL UASC cases
	**Removals data used from historical removals report 2010-2013
	***‘Voluntary Departure' includes ‘Voluntary - Data matching' and ‘Voluntary - Eurodac'
	****All numbers below 5 are rounded to nearest 5. Total is sum of actual figures.
	The figures provided are sourced from a Home Office management information system which is not quality assured under National Statistics protocols and is subject to change due to internal data quality checking. Figures provided from this source do not constitute part of National Statistics and should be treated as provisional.

Charity Commissioners

Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what oversight they have of the work of the Charity Commissioners.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: Cabinet Office Ministers are responsible for the appointment of the Chair of the Charity Commission and its board members. As the independent registrar and regulator of charities in England and Wales, the Charity Commission cannot be directed by Government. The Charity Commission is answerable to the courts and tribunals for its legal decisions. It is also accountable to Parliament.

EU: Food

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord De Mauley on 6 November (WA 47) regarding European Union food safety directives, what was the justification for conferring such powers on the European Commission; and what is the reason for limiting them to five years in the first instance.

Lord De Mauley: The delegated powers conferred on the European Commission by Regulation (EU) No 1021/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 concern a very limited number of provisions contained in the annexes to the directives referred to by the noble Lord. They relate to technical aspects of the directives which may need to be updated and amended relatively quickly to take account of technological developments or changes to other
	international standards. In fact, as a result of pressure from Member States, no powers at all were delegated to the Commission for two of the five directives covered by this Regulation.
	The UK’s preference is that the duration of delegated powers should be for a fixed period capable of being extended by the same period unless the Council of Ministers or the European Parliament objects. This ensures that there is an inbuilt periodic chance for the delegated powers of the Commission to be reviewed, and brought to an end if any concerns are raised. The period of five years is the standard period for which delegated powers are granted in the food information sphere, and the drafting of the provision is, in all other respects, in line with the specimen provision for powers of a fixed duration contained in the Common Understanding for delegated acts under Article 290 agreed by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament.

Health: Crohn’s Disease

Baroness Masham of Ilton: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to improve access for people with Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis to (1) psychological, and (2) dietetic support.

Earl Howe: Through our Mandate to the National Health Service, we have asked NHS England to make measurable progress towards making our health service among the best in Europe at supporting people with on-going health problems, such as ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease, to live healthily and independently, with much better control over the care they receive.
	To support commissioners to deliver local services for people with Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) published, Crohn's Disease Management in Adults, Children and Young People, in October 2012, and, Ulcerative Colitis Management in Adults, Children and Young People, in June 2013.
	The NICE Crohn's clinical guideline states that, “Inducing and maintaining remission as well as optimising nutritional status and growth, and minimising psychological concerns and possible side effects of treatment are fundamental to best practice for all people with Crohn's disease, whatever their age”. This could include access to psychological and dietetic support, if appropriate. The full guideline can be found at the following link:
	www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/13936/61002/61002.pdf.
	The NICE Ulcerative Colitis clinical guideline states that, “Access to psychologists and counsellors is important for a range of problems and people with ulcerative colitis may benefit from their input at various stages of the disease”. Psychological support is highlighted as being particularly important if a patient is considering surgery for their disease, and post-operatively, when
	surgery has taken place. Again, the guideline is clear that psychological support can play a part in patient care, if appropriate.
	In terms of the role of diet, the guideline set out that, “While there is little evidence that diet plays a significant role in ulcerative colitis … Dieticians can help patients understand the need for a balanced diet and can provide nutritional assessment, advice and support for people throughout the disease process”. Although the guidance is clear that the evidence base for the role of diet in the disease is small, it acknowledges that dietary advice and support may be appropriate for some patients. The full guideline can be found at the following link:
	www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/14189/64218/64218.pdf.

Health: Red Tape Challenge

Lord Mawson: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Statement by Earl Howe on 19 November (HL Deb, col 858–61), what are the implications of their proposal in respect of the Red Tape Challenge; and, in the light of the one-in two-out approach for regulations, which areas of regulation will be removed.

Earl Howe: The Department will announce in December the regulations to be scrapped and improved as part of the Government's Red Tape Challenge and will continue to work to try and meet the One-In Two Out rules.
	The Department is responsible for key areas of public protection. Many of its regulations are therefore essential to protect patients and the public by ensuring essential standards are maintained. The Department has nevertheless actively embraced the Red Tape Challenge and one-in two out agendas, and has actively sought opportunities to reduce burden and to identify alternatives to regulation where appropriate.

Immigration

Lord Touhig: To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many checks were undertaken through the United Kingdom Border Agency employer checking service in 2012-13.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: There were 62,300 Employer Checking Service check requests undertaken between 1st April 2012 and 31st March 2013. The figures quoted are not National Statistics but are based on local management information.

Immigration

Lord Avebury: To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many persons have been granted indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom as the (1) parent, (2) grandparent, or (3) other dependent relative, of a person present and settled in the United Kingdom, under Rule 317 of the Immigration Rules, from the date that Rule came into effect.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: Paragraph 317 of the Immigration Rules came into effect on one October 1994.
	The published statistics on grants of settlement (indefinite leave to enter or remain) to parents and grandparents (combined) and other unspecified dependants of a person present and settled in the United Kingdom are given in the table below.
	
		
			 Grants of settlement by selected category of grant   
			  Parents and grandparents Other unspecified dependants 
			 Year   
			 1994 2,110 .. 
			 1995 2,010 .. 
			 1996 1,610 .. 
			 1997 1,184 943 
			 1998 1,335 2,880 
			 1999 1,079 2,064 
			 2000 2,436 4,998 
			 2001 1,758 4,572 
			 2002 1,748 4,016 
			 2003 3,089 4,998 
			 2004 1,984 4,302 
			 2005 1,449 4,880 
			 2006 1,469 6,326 
			 2007 1,001 4,344 
			 2008 975 4,781 
			 2009 1,003 5,489 
			 2010 1,766 4,616 
			 2011 1,783 3,118 
			 2012 1,389 2,550 
			 2013 Q1 247 329 
			 2013 Q2 291 366 
		
	
	= Not available.
	1. Grants of settlement includes indefinite leave to enter and indefinite leave to remain.
	2. The data relates to a range of dependants which includes parents, grandparents and other dependent relatives granted under paragraph 317 as well as other dependants who may qualify for indefinite leave to enter or remain such as Gurkhas and their dependants.
	3. Other dependent relatives are included in Other unspecified dependants.
	4. Decisions may relate to applications made in earlier years or quarters, and include decisions based on various Immigration Rules.
	Source: Tables se_02 and se_02_q, Immigration Statistics April-June 2013 and Table 5.3 Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom 2004
	The published statistics do not separately identify parents and grandparents of a person present and settled in the UK. Other dependent relatives of a
	person present and settled in the UK are included in other and unspecified dependants but are not separately identified. Grants made under paragraph 317 are included within the statistics provided but it is not possible to identify them separately.
	On 9 July 2012 new rules for adult dependent relatives of British citizens and persons settled in the UK were introduced in Appendix FM. This route is now only accessible to applicants applying from outside the UK.
	The Home Office publishes quarterly and annual statistics on grants of settlement within the Immigration Statistics release. A copy of the latest release, Immigration Statistics April — June 2013 is available from the Library of the House and from:
	https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/home-office/series/immigration-statistics-quarterly-release.

Immigration: Registered Travellers

Viscount Colville of Culross: To ask Her Majesty’s Government why non-European Union citizens who are resident in the United Kingdom are not allowed to register for the new registered traveller scheme; and how that compares with the conditions for registration (1) by such citizens for the old iris recognition immigration scheme and (2) by non-European Union citizens who are not resident in the United Kingdom.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: Registered Traveller was launched in September 2013, as a pilot scheme with a small cohort of potential applicants so that Border Force can test the processes. The cohort for the Registered Traveller pilot consists of those non EEA nationals who were registered for IRIS. The pilot scheme does not currently include those non EEA nationals who are resident in the UK, but does include those non EEA nationals who are visitors and not resident in the UK.
	This initial approach allows for comprehensive testing and evaluation of the processes and systems, including the IT. The evaluation of the pilot will inform the criteria for the next cohort to be included on the scheme.
	The eligibility and Terms & Conditions for the pilot scheme are available at https://www.gov.uk/registered-traveller-scheme

Legislation

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: To ask Her Majesty’s Government (1) how many public bills they have introduced since May 2010; and (2) how many pages of primary legislation resulted.

Lord Hill of Oareford: In the first (two-year) session of the current Parliament, 34 Government Bills (excluding financial, Law Commission and consolidation Bills) were introduced, resulting in 3,262 pages of legislation. In the second session, 22 new Government Bills were introduced, resulting in 1,092 pages of legislation. In the current session, 17 new Government Bills have been introduced. This information, together with the data for previous sessions and Parliaments, is available in the Sessional Returns at www.publications. parliament. uk/pa/cm/cmsesret.htm.

Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed

Lord Laird: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any plans to withdraw British citizenship from Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed following the breach of his terrorism prevention and investigation measures notice and absconsion.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: Where the Home Secretary considers that it is appropriate and conducive to the public good to do so, she has the power to deprive an individual of their British citizenship. However, if an individual would be rendered stateless by such a decision, it would not be possible to deprive him of British citizenship under current law.

National Offender Management Service: Volunteers

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the National Offender Management Service intends to publish an evaluation of its volunteering and mentoring project before it is rolled out further; and, if so, when.

Lord McNally: The National Offender Management Service mentoring and volunteering project was set up in 2011 to both develop the infrastructure and improve the capability of the Voluntary Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) in providing mentoring services. Following a competed process, NOMS awarded grant funding to eight voluntary sector organisations. The work included mapping existing mentoring services, and development of the “justmentoring” information hub to improve access to good information about both mentoring and quality assurance arrangements. The work also included developing and supplying guidance and toolkits for engaging specific groups of offenders.
	The project’s objectives meant the work was not set up to be evaluated and consequently there is no evaluation to be shared.
	The Ministry of Justice has recently published a rapid evidence assessment on intermediate outcomes of mentoring interventions, a summary of which can be found on the gov.uk website. The justmentoring website and assessment can be found via the following links:
	http://www.justmentoring.org.uk/.
	https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rapid-evidence-assessments-on-intermediate-outcomes-and-reoffending.

NHS: Accident and Emergency Services

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many (1) NHS accident and emergency units, and (2) NHS walk-in centres, existed in 2010; how many general practitioners and nurses staffed them; what are the corresponding numbers currently; and what impact they forecast that the Urgent and Emergency Care Review will have on those numbers.

Earl Howe: The Department ceased to collect data on the number of walk-in centres (WICs) in 2008. Therefore, there is also no data on staffing levels for WICs.
	No data on accident and emergency (A&E) departments has been collected centrally since 2011. There are therefore no recent figures, although in September 2010 there were 605 total A&E departments including 197 type 1s.
	Data on the number of nurses or general practitioners staffed in A&E departments is not collected in the format requested. It is for hospitals themselves to decide how many nurses they employ, as they are best placed to do this.
	Figures for consultants in A&E departments are as follows:
	
		
			 Year Number of consultants 
			 2010 1,013 
			 2011 1,100 
			 2012 1,230 
		
	
	NHS England’s Urgent and Emergency Care review will help clinical commissioning groups and National Health Service frontline organisations to find the right balance between providing excellent clinical care in serious complex emergencies and maintaining and improving local access to services for less serious problems.

NHS: Accident and Emergency Services

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the difference in average waiting times for patients in NHS accident and emergency units and walk-in centres since 2010.

Earl Howe: There are three measures of waiting times in the NHS Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC) Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) for accident and emergency departments (A&E). These are time to assessment; time to treatment; and time to departure.
	There are four classifications of A&E departments in the HES data, type 4 being National Health Service walk in centres. The following table shows the average waiting times for all A&E departments, types 1 to 3 combined, type 4 (NHS walk in centres) and for those where the location of the activity is not known. Information for 2012-13 is not yet available.
	Mean and median duration to assessment, treatment and departure in all A&E departments, type 1, 2 and 3 combined, type 4 (walk in centres) and for those where the location of the activity is not known.
	
		
			   Duration to Assessment 1  Duration to Treatment 2  Duration to Departure 3  
			   Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median 
			 2010-11 All 64.5 10 98.4 58 145.7 130 
			  Types 1,2 and 3 4 65.8 9 95.2 57 146.4 130 
			  Type 4 5 11.6 5 48.0 30 94.8 87 
			  Not known 54.8 12 129.8 68 142.3 130 
			 2011-12 All 33.1 8 75.4 52 138.2 125 
			  Types 1, 2 and 3 4 34.0 8 76.0 52 139.5 126 
			  Type 4 5 16.6 10 36.6 25 63.4 52 
			  Not known 15.9 7 80.9 65 141.7 133 
		
	
	Source: Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Health and Social Care Information Centre.
	Notes:
	Activity in English NHS Hospitals and English NHS commissioned activity in the independent sector.
	1
	. Duration to assessment: This is the total amount of time in minutes between the patients’ arrival and their initial assessment in the accident and emergency (A&E) department. This is calculated as the difference in time from arrival at A&E to the time when the patient is initially assessed.
	2
	. Duration to treatment: This is the total amount of time in minutes between the patients’ arrival and the start of their treatment. This is calculated as the difference in time from arrival at A&E to the time when the patient began treatment.
	3
	. Duration to departure: This is total amount of time spent in minutes in an A&E department. This is calculated as the difference in time from arrival at A&E to the time when the
	patient is discharged from A&E care. This includes being admitted to hospital, dying in the department, discharged with no follow up or discharged and referred to another specialist department.
	4
	. Type 1: A consultant-led 24-hour service with full resuscitation facilities and designated accommodation for the reception of A&E patients. Type 2: A consultant-led single speciality A&E service – e.g. ophthalmology, dental, children’s A&E with designated accommodation for the reception of A&E patients. Type 3: Other type of A&E/minor injury activity with designated accommodation for the reception of accident and emergency patients. It may be doctor led or nurse led and treats at least minor injuries and illnesses and can be routinely accessed without appointment. A service mainly or entirely appointment based (for example a GP practice or outpatient clinic) is excluded even though it may treat a number of patients with minor illness or injury. Excludes NHS walk-in centres.
	5
	. Type 4: NHS walk in centres
	Mean and Median: The mean (average) and median (middle in ranking when all values are sorted in order) duration in minutes to assessment, treatment or duration.
	Assessing growth through time (A&E): Changes to the figures over time need to be interpreted in the context of improvements in data quality and coverage and changes in NHS practice. For example, changes in activity may be due to changes in the provision of care.

NHS: Culture Change

Lord Mawson: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Statement by Earl Howe on 19 November (HL Deb, col 858–61), what steps they are taking to ensure that there is a change of culture within the National Health Service.

Earl Howe: The Government published its further response to the report of the public inquiry into Mid Staffordshire Foundation Trust on 19 November 2013. The response set out a comprehensive programme that seeks to ensure the National Health Service has a consistently safe, effective and compassionate culture of care. The response, Hard Truths: the Journey to Putting Patients First, has already been placed in the Library.

NHS: General Practitioners

Lord Bassam of Brighton: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what benefits were gained from ending the staggered training sessions of general practitioners that previously existed under primary care trusts in the Coastal West Sussex Clinical Commissioning Group.
	To ask Her Majesty’s Government what they estimate to be the cost of reverting to the staggered training sessions of general practitioners that previously existed under primary care trusts in the Coastal West Sussex Clinical Commissioning Group.
	To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures they intend to put in place to ensure that sufficient care can be provided for patients via telephone
	diagnosis whilst general practitioners in the Coastal West Sussex Clinical Commissioning Group are receiving training.
	To ask Her Majesty’s Government who are the contractors for the provision of training in the Coastal West Sussex Clinical Commissioning Group; and what is the cost of that contract.

Earl Howe: Coastal West Sussex Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) has informed Departmental officials that general practitioner (GP) training has not been outsourced and it is coordinated internally via the CCG's organisational development team. We also understand that staggered training sessions have not ended — whilst one session on 19 November was not staggered, other sessions in February and April 2013 were - with further staggered training sessions being planned for 2014. By holding a CCG-wide event on 19 November the CCG estimates it saved in excess of £12,000 for that event as compared to holding two staggered events on the same issues.
	Planning for the event on 19 November 2013 started in April, with GP practices being given four months’ notice to plan cover during the afternoon session. When formal planning began in August 2013, NHS 111 was informed and involved from the outset, and took on extra staff on 19 November to cover any extra demand.

NHS: Nurses

Lord Taylor of Warwick: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they consider there to be sufficient nurses in NHS hospitals.

Earl Howe: Patient safety is paramount and patient safety experts agree that safe staffing levels should be set locally. It is not for the Government to decide whether there are sufficient nurses in National Health Service hospitals, it is for local hospitals themselves to decide how many nurses they employ, and they are best placed to do this.
	The Government's response to the Mid-Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust public inquiry, Hard Truths: The Journey to Putting Patients First, set out the expectation that from April 2014 and by June 2014 at the latest, NHS trusts will publish ward level information on whether they are meeting their staffing requirements and every six months trust boards will be required to undertake a detailed review of staffing using evidence based tools.
	The Care Quality Commission through its Chief Inspector of Hospitals will monitor this performance and take action where non-compliance puts patients at risk of harm and appropriate staffing levels will be a core element of the Care Quality Commission's registration regime.
	Alongside the Government's response to the Mid-Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust public inquiry, the National Quality Board and the Chief Nursing Officer have published a guidance document that sets out the current evidence on safe staffing, and builds on the Compassion in Practice action area dedicated to ensuring the right staff, at the right time and with the right skills. This clarifies the expectations on all NHS bodies to see to it that every ward and every shift has the staff needed to ensure that patients receive safe care.

Special Educational Needs and Disabilities

Lord Storey: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are the current means of redress for an appeal regarding health provision for special educational needs and disabilities.

Earl Howe: The arrangements are the same as for other health service users. The Local Authority Social Services and National Health Service Complaints (England) Regulations 2009 allow a complaint to be made to an NHS body about the exercise of its functions.
	The Children and Families Bill gives a new duty to health services to provide the services set out in an Education, Health and Care Plan, and the National Health Service mandate covering services for children and young people with special educational needs.

Syria

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, in the light of the current situation in Syria, they have considered relaxing the financial criterion for Syrian nationals resident in the United Kingdom who wish to bring their dependants into the country.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: Those granted refugee leave or humanitarian protection in the UK can be joined by an existing partner or dependent child under the provisions for pre-flight family members contained in Part 11 of the Immigration Rules. Such applications are not required to meet the minimum income threshold for a non-European Economic Area (non-EEA) national partner or dependent child which applies under the family rules in Appendix FM. Syrian nationals with settled status (Indefinite Leave to Enter or Remain) in the UK continue to have to meet the family rules in order to be joined here by their non-EEA national dependants and we have no current plans to change this requirement.

Television Licence Fee: Court Proceedings

Lord Empey: To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many prosecutions have been brought for non-payment of the television licence fee in each of the last three years.
	To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many people received prison sentences for non-payment of the television licence fee in each of the last three years.

Lord McNally: The number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates’ courts and found guilty and sentenced at all courts for installing or using a television receiver without paying the appropriate fee, in England and Wales, from 2010 to 2012, can be viewed in the table.
	Data reported to the Ministry of Justice covers England and Wales. Data for Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for the respective devolved administrations.
	
		
			 Defendants proceeded against at magistrates' court and found guilty and sentenced at all courts for offences relating to installing or using a television receiver without the appropriate licence (1), England and Wales, 2010-2012 (2)(3)(4) 
			 Outcome 2010 2011 2012 
			 Proceeded against 164,450 170,645 193,049 
			 Found Guilty 142,380 149,236 164,932 
			 Sentenced 142,380 149,236 164,932 
			 Of which:
			 Absolutedischarge 159 215 232 
			 Conditionaldischarge 532 470 531 
			 Fine 141,682 148,539 164,167 
			 Communitysentence - - - 
			 Suspended sentences - - - 
			 Otherwisedealtwith (6) 7 12 2 
			 Immediatecustody - - - 
		
	
	‘-‘ = Nil
	(1) An offence under S 363 of the Communications Act 2003
	(2) The figures given in the table relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.
	(3) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used.
	(4) The number of offenders sentenced can differ from those found guilty as it may be the case that a defendant found guilty in a particular year, and committed for sentence at the Crown Court, may be sentenced in the following year.
	(5) Excludes data for Cardiff magistrates' court for April, July and August 2008.
	(6) The category Otherwise Dealt With (ODW) includes: one day in police cells; disqualification order; restraining order; confiscation order; travel restriction order; disqualification from driving; recommendation for deportation; and other miscellaneous disposals.
	Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services - Ministry of Justice.
	Ref: PQs HL 3523 & 3524

Terrorism

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures they are taking to ensure the strength of the terrorism prevention and investigation measures notice system.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: We have put in place some of the toughest controls we possibly can in a democratic society to protect the public.
	As the Home Secretary said in Parliament on 4 November 2013, Official Report, column 31, there are regular reviews of the measures attached to each terrorism prevention and investigation measure (TPIM) notice. The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation reported on these review processes in his report of March 2013 on the operation of the Act. The Home Secretary is clear that all the measures available under the TPIM Act should be used to the fullest extent possible to protect the public.

Unemployment

Lord Taylor of Warwick: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to assist those over 50 who are unemployed.

Lord Freud: The Government, through Universal Credit, the Work Programme and Jobcentre Plus flexibilities, is reforming the welfare system to improve incentives and provide more effective support to those without work. Advisers now have the flexibility to offer all claimants, including older people, a comprehensive menu of help which includes skills provision and job search support. All claimants who are long term unemployed can access the tailored, back to work support, on offer from the Work Programme.

Young Offenders

Baroness Stern: To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many juvenile prisoners were held overnight in police cells as a lockout for each of the last five years.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: No young person has been held overnight in police cells due to being locked out of the youth secure establishments in the last five years.